Topic: $5000+ bitcoin? - page 3. (Read 15432 times)
5kk for 1btc plox
Scaling isn't the only issue with bitcoin going mainstream. I think the scalability issue is a solvable problem. It's not trivial, but it's solvable. I do kind of wish that people would stop coming up with proposals to stuff more things into the blockchain though since that's only going to make the scalability problem harder if it becomes a way of trading stock as well (as has been suggested).
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
its amazing that it takes 'geek' to be able to understand this and is a testament to how dumb-ed down the general population is, either that or we are underestmating them
It not that hard to keep BTC secured. Just priv key and address + some form or encryption eg truecrypt and your done.
if you you want cold gap's then signed transactions.
I have found electrum to be excellent so far...worry abit about the 128 bit seed/deterministic though, rather than the 256, or even 512 should be used imho
5 year's ago but coin was worth 2c. look at how any times it has doubled in that space of time, this is with a small user base as well. now if you look at all the people who are beginning to see the true value of bitcoin and the amount of people it is safe to say bitcoin will have some strong price hikes.
I wouldn't quite say it's safe, but the possibility for value increases in orders of magnitude are possible.
5 year's ago but coin was worth 2c. look at how any times it has doubled in that space of time, this is with a small user base as well. now if you look at all the people who are beginning to see the true value of bitcoin and the amount of people it is safe to say bitcoin will have some strong price hikes.
$5000 / BTC? Definately sometime, but maybe not this year.
Before the end of the next (31/12/2014)
$5000 / BTC? Definately sometime, but maybe not this year.
Oh, now I get Trezor. I just watched most of the presentation about it on YouTube and it's basically the equivalent of the second computer that does the key signing in Armory. Looks like a great and much needed device.
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem.
Check out Trezor: http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ , very important development imho. I just hope they can make them somewhat cheaper in the future, so that it is also interesting for people with few bitcoins.
Sounds like a great product. I tried to watch their product, but our internet connection sucks too much to watch videos on Vimeo, sadly. But I agree, it would be ideal if they can make it significantly cheaper than that. I can see them selling well at half a bitcoin, but at that price? I'd rather pay a little more and just having an offline computer that I'd also use for the wallet, since that I could at least use for more things than just keeping my bitcoins secure.
I guess it (how cheap they can make it) might depend on whether bitcoin takes off again or not. If the bitcoin market cap becomes much higher, then there will be a lot more money available for security devices (say you are willing to give 1% of your stake to security), so there will be a lot more devices sold, so you can produce at larger scale, so it becomes cheaper etc. ...
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem.
Check out Trezor: http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ , very important development imho. I just hope they can make them somewhat cheaper in the future, so that it is also interesting for people with few bitcoins.
Sounds like a great product. I tried to watch their product, but our internet connection sucks too much to watch videos on Vimeo, sadly. But I agree, it would be ideal if they can make it significantly cheaper than that. I can see them selling well at half a bitcoin, but at that price? I'd rather pay a little more and just having an offline computer that I'd also use for the wallet, since that I could at least use for more things than just keeping my bitcoins secure.
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem.
Check out Trezor: http://www.bitcointrezor.com/ , very important development imho. I just hope they can make them somewhat cheaper in the future, so that it is also interesting for people with few bitcoins.
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
Hardware wallets definitely seem like a good solution for taking bitcoin mainstream. Not sure how they would work technologically, but I'm sure it's possible to do it well and I'm sure there is, or at least will be, money to be made in making a good product that solves this problem.
Scaling isn't the only issue with bitcoin going mainstream. I think the scalability issue is a solvable problem. It's not trivial, but it's solvable. I do kind of wish that people would stop coming up with proposals to stuff more things into the blockchain though since that's only going to make the scalability problem harder if it becomes a way of trading stock as well (as has been suggested).
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
Yes. I use Armory as well and although it is good software, it does demonstrate that securing bitcoins is going to be a big problem for most people. I think there are hardware wallets being designed that are offline until needed when they can safely plug into a computer like a usb drive. I am optimistic about this area because it does not tinker with core Bitcoin software like the blockchain optimizations. As market-share of Bitcoin increases there will be larger companies working on consumer components to make bitcoin management seamless and secure.
I watched the Bitcoin 2013 conference talk on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LQu-eIOO0&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7&index=9) earlier today about why you should invest in bitcoin. In it, Demeester said that if bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency, replacing the dollar, the price will end up being $500,000 / Bitcoin. So that's likely the upper limit on bitcoin price. I certainly wouldn't complain if that happens, it'd make me a millionaire and I don't even have all that many bitcoins. But I'd be very surprised if it ends up being THAT successful.
I watched that talk a month ago and it is certainly worth watching for sure.
I think that is why, even if some consider BTC a risky investment, that it is actually smart to buy at least a few. It is much cheaper than a trip to Vegas if you like to gamble and there are some pretty good odds, especially compared to playing the lottery. At this point the risk of not investing is something I think people should consider.
That super-high dollar value is very possible provided that some key software improvements are done to Bitcoin for scaling, also that governments continue to abuse their fiats to death with zero interest rates, a bankster-controlled shadow-banking system, CB money printing and stomach-churning annual sovereign deficits.
Seems to me like all of the above are baked in the cake.
Scaling isn't the only issue with bitcoin going mainstream. I think the scalability issue is a solvable problem. It's not trivial, but it's solvable. I do kind of wish that people would stop coming up with proposals to stuff more things into the blockchain though since that's only going to make the scalability problem harder if it becomes a way of trading stock as well (as has been suggested).
To me, the harder problem is security. I'm a geek and I think especially with Armory, I can handle securing my bitcoins. I suspect 90% of the Bitcoin userbase right now are people who are also geeks and could solve this problem on their own. But when it goes mainstream and random people who aren't geeks and don't think about security will need to be able to have security somehow too. Ironically, the easiest way of solving this problem is for these people to store their bitcoins in either an online wallet or a bitcoin bank. Which, of course, just shifts the security problem from the people holding the wallet to the banks or companies with the case of Coinbase.
I watched the Bitcoin 2013 conference talk on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LQu-eIOO0&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7&index=9) earlier today about why you should invest in bitcoin. In it, Demeester said that if bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency, replacing the dollar, the price will end up being $500,000 / Bitcoin. So that's likely the upper limit on bitcoin price. I certainly wouldn't complain if that happens, it'd make me a millionaire and I don't even have all that many bitcoins. But I'd be very surprised if it ends up being THAT successful.
I watched that talk a month ago and it is certainly worth watching for sure.
I think that is why, even if some consider BTC a risky investment, that it is actually smart to buy at least a few. It is much cheaper than a trip to Vegas if you like to gamble and there are some pretty good odds, especially compared to playing the lottery. At this point the risk of not investing is something I think people should consider.
That super-high dollar value is very possible provided that some key software improvements are done to Bitcoin for scaling, also that governments continue to abuse their fiats to death with zero interest rates, a bankster-controlled shadow-banking system, CB money printing and stomach-churning annual sovereign deficits.
Seems to me like all of the above are baked in the cake.
I watched the Bitcoin 2013 conference talk on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LQu-eIOO0&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7&index=9) earlier today about why you should invest in bitcoin. In it, Demeester said that if bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency, replacing the dollar, the price will end up being $500,000 / Bitcoin. So that's likely the upper limit on bitcoin price. I certainly wouldn't complain if that happens, it'd make me a millionaire and I don't even have all that many bitcoins. But I'd be very surprised if it ends up being THAT successful.
I watched that talk a month ago and it is certainly worth watching for sure.
I think that is why, even if some consider BTC a risky investment, that it is actually smart to buy at least a few. It is much cheaper than a trip to Vegas if you like to gamble and there are some pretty good odds, especially compared to playing the lottery. At this point the risk of not investing is something I think people should consider.
I watched the Bitcoin 2013 conference talk on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7LQu-eIOO0&list=PLUOP0P68GJ3BGjfqoLLnzAefk3ZzXQtJ7&index=9) earlier today about why you should invest in bitcoin. In it, Demeester said that if bitcoin becomes the world reserve currency, replacing the dollar, the price will end up being $500,000 / Bitcoin. So that's likely the upper limit on bitcoin price. I certainly wouldn't complain if that happens, it'd make me a millionaire and I don't even have all that many bitcoins. But I'd be very surprised if it ends up being THAT successful.
Currently there is no consensus among developers on whether this restriction will EVER be lifted.
Incorrect. Progress is being made on it:
The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.
This, plus the blockchain optimization work, once live, will enable the next leg of growth for Bitcoin and see the widespread market usage which is needed to justify a four-figure fx rate.
i think increasing processor power and internet speeds makes larger blocks ok.
Currently there is no consensus among developers on whether this restriction will EVER be lifted.
Incorrect. Progress is being made on it:
The block size will be raised, that is the overwhelming consensus among the people who are actually writing code and using Bitcoin for products and services that it needs to happen.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.
And there is a tiny minority of people who will loudly proclaim that isn't true and that the core developer are going to destroy Bitcoin if the block size is raised.
If you want to be helpful, please organize a list of objections to raising the block size limit and responses to those objections.
I believe the last objection raised was that a higher block size limit would make it impossible to mine anonymously, but I think that has been debunked with the notion of "read the firehose of transactions non-anonymously, then broadcast just new block header + coinbase + listof(truncated transaction hashes) anonymously."
I'll soon be writing up a plan for how we can safely raise the block size limit.
RE: central planning:
No central planning is why I would like to eliminate the hard, upper blocksize limit entirely, and let the network decide "how big is too big."
RE: "the plan" : The plan from the beginning was to support huge blocks. The 1MB hard limit was always a temporary denial-of-service prevention measure.
This, plus the blockchain optimization work, once live, will enable the next leg of growth for Bitcoin and see the widespread market usage which is needed to justify a four-figure fx rate.
The 1MB limit is a part of the protocol, as it now is. Changing the limit constitutes a hard fork, and it does seem that several very influential people in the Bitcoin community are set against any alteration of the limit.
The "very influential people" don't decide alone. Every user of a bitcoin-client decides which blocks are relayed. Every miner decides on which blocks expansion of the blockchain will take place.
Just because they want everyone to be able to run a full node with a ten year old laptop and substandard internet connection.
Which will still be possible with approaches like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fundraising-finish-ultimate-blockchain-compression-204283 I'm pretty much certain that the scalability issues can't be solved soon enough for the exponential trendlines to hold. My old back-of-the-envelope calculation suggested a max price of $400/BTC in the long term, unless the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE issue is solved. Of course it can momentarily shoot to 10 times that.
um what scale ability issues? Its just moving a decimal point for price. I think it will go the other way, price will go up which will drive solutions, because there is more money on offer. Also processing fees will drop as the price goes up because btc it worth more.
finally block size can be increased
As of now, the maximum block size that's going to be relayed by Bitcoin nodes is 1MB, which corresponds to about 7 transactions per second. If there's demand for more than that, fees will start to limit who gets to use the blockchain.
If Bitcoin's popularity grows tenfold, we'll actually hit the limit and see its consequences. If bitcoin is deemed useful despite this restriction, expect to see a minimum fee for ANY TRANSACTION of several dollars.
Currently there is no consensus among developers on whether this restriction will EVER be lifted.
Can you explain why a minimum transaction fee of the equivalent of several dollars would be necessary given a tenfold increase in transaction volume and why there would be no possible alternative? Please be as technical as possible.
Actually it won't be necessary because I believe if the limit is not raised bitcoin won't be considered useful and most people will get out of bitcoin, thus lifting the pressure to raise the limit.
The 1MB limit is a part of the protocol, as it now is. Changing the limit constitutes a hard fork, and it does seem that several very influential people in the Bitcoin community are set against any alteration of the limit.
I don't want to get to the technicalities here, just search the forum for MAX_BLOCK_SIZE and you get an endless argument over this. Changing the limit (my current opinion is that the best alternative is to make it a function of both recent average block size and difficulty) is necessary to allow bitcoin to grow. Many people seem to want to centralize bitcoin into the hands of a few big enough organizations that could act as banks and could actually use the blockchain and let the general public just trust those bitcoin banks. Just because they want everyone to be able to run a full node with a ten year old laptop and substandard internet connection.
Jump to: